RE: Budget Battles and the Growth of the Administrative State

RE: Budget Battles and the Growth of the Administrative State (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

deathtothepixies -> RE: Budget Battles and the Growth of the Administrative State (12/3/2013 4:58:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RottenJohnny quote: ORIGINAL: deathtothepixies quote: ORIGINAL: RottenJohnny quote: ORIGINAL: deathtothepixies I will ignore that fact the seem to be suggesting that poor people should not be allowed to have children, eugenics anyone? I think he's trying to say that if you're poor and decide to have children that you're still responsible for their care, not the taxpayers. and most people know that, but what happens when things go wrong? Do they get help? Or do they get left behind? Help them and hey may well end up paying tax for years to come, leave them and they may become a burden for years to come You're missing the third alternative...help them and they may also become a welfare addict for years to come. Indeed they might, the bastards. Best not to give them the chance eh? Thanks Johnny

RottenJohnny -> RE: Budget Battles and the Growth of the Administrative State (12/3/2013 5:02:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: deathtothepixies quote: ORIGINAL: RottenJohnny quote: ORIGINAL: deathtothepixies quote: ORIGINAL: RottenJohnny quote: ORIGINAL: deathtothepixies I will ignore that fact the seem to be suggesting that poor people should not be allowed to have children, eugenics anyone? I think he's trying to say that if you're poor and decide to have children that you're still responsible for their care, not the taxpayers. and most people know that, but what happens when things go wrong? Do they get help? Or do they get left behind? Help them and hey may well end up paying tax for years to come, leave them and they may become a burden for years to come You're missing the third alternative...help them and they may also become a welfare addict for years to come. Indeed they might, the bastards. Best not to give them the chance eh? Thanks Johnny I didn't say that either. But living in a free country comes with risk. What a bitch, eh?

deathtothepixies -> RE: Budget Battles and the Growth of the Administrative State (12/3/2013 5:10:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RottenJohnny quote: ORIGINAL: deathtothepixies quote: ORIGINAL: RottenJohnny quote: ORIGINAL: deathtothepixies quote: ORIGINAL: RottenJohnny quote: ORIGINAL: deathtothepixies I will ignore that fact the seem to be suggesting that poor people should not be allowed to have children, eugenics anyone? I think he's trying to say that if you're poor and decide to have children that you're still responsible for their care, not the taxpayers. and most people know that, but what happens when things go wrong? Do they get help? Or do they get left behind? Help them and hey may well end up paying tax for years to come, leave them and they may become a burden for years to come You're missing the third alternative...help them and they may also become a welfare addict for years to come. Indeed they might, the bastards. Best not to give them the chance eh? Thanks Johnny I didn't say that either. But living in a free country comes with risk. What a bitch, eh? Free my arse, so are you going to give them a chance or not? Life can be a bitch so it would be nice to have a second chance when life shits on you

RottenJohnny -> RE: Budget Battles and the Growth of the Administrative State (12/3/2013 5:36:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: deathtothepixies quote: ORIGINAL: RottenJohnny quote: ORIGINAL: deathtothepixies quote: ORIGINAL: RottenJohnny quote: ORIGINAL: deathtothepixies quote: ORIGINAL: RottenJohnny quote: ORIGINAL: deathtothepixies I will ignore that fact the seem to be suggesting that poor people should not be allowed to have children, eugenics anyone? I think he's trying to say that if you're poor and decide to have children that you're still responsible for their care, not the taxpayers. and most people know that, but what happens when things go wrong? Do they get help? Or do they get left behind? Help them and hey may well end up paying tax for years to come, leave them and they may become a burden for years to come You're missing the third alternative...help them and they may also become a welfare addict for years to come. Indeed they might, the bastards. Best not to give them the chance eh? Thanks Johnny I didn't say that either. But living in a free country comes with risk. What a bitch, eh? Free my arse, so are you going to give them a chance or not? Life can be a bitch so it would be nice to have a second chance when life shits on you Let me explain what you don't seem to understand about American culture... We are one of the most charitable nations on the planet. People in this country give away billions of dollars to help those in need outside of any government cash. If you look at what's available from private charities and are willing to ask for the help, it's pretty hard to not find a meal or a place to bed down until you can find a way to get back on your feet. All of this can happen without any government funds. It's not easy but it can be done. When Americans have more money in their pockets, statistics have shown that they tend to be more charitable (yes, it's true). The idea that some of us "small government" types are trying to put forth is that if the government would stop spending money on bloated programs that are often abused and lower our taxes accordingly so that we have more money in our pockets, you will find the coffers of private charitable organization filling up with cash again. If you don't believe any of that then take 2 minutes to consider the size of our economy then go look at how many private charity groups there are based in the US. There are tons of them. And most of them are managing to bring in money. There are a lot of ways these charitable systems could be reorganized to function better but the potential for it to work without the need for the government to be involved is all there.

cloudboy -> RE: Budget Battles and the Growth of the Administrative State (12/3/2013 7:52:22 PM)
So, these ideas behind a limited government that grants its subjects maximum freedom and economic prosperity have never been successfully implemented by anyone in history or current times, but you still believe it's the way to go? It's up to the USA to plow this field first. -------- We all have our own personal targets for bloated government agencies. Here's mine: WASHINGTON -- The United States spends more money on immigration enforcement -- nearly $18 billion in the 2012 fiscal year -- than on its other law enforcement agencies combined, according to a report released Monday from the nonpartisan Migration Policy Institute. There has been a "historic transformation of immigration enforcement and the emergence of a complex, modernized, cross-governmental immigration enforcement system that projects beyond the nation’s borders and at the same time reaches into local jails and courtrooms across the United States to generate an unparalleled degree of enforcement activity. The system’s six pillars have been resourced at unprecedented levels and a panoply of enforcement mandates and programs have been implemented that demonstrate the federal government’s ability and will to enforce the nation’s immigration laws. Beginning in the 1990s and intensified since 9/11, Congress, successive administrations, and the public have supported building a muscular immigration enforcement infrastructure within which immigration agencies now define their goals and missions principally in terms of national security and public safety. Immigration enforcement has been granted new standing as a key tool in the nation’s counterterrorism strategies, irrevocably altering immigration policies and practices in the process. From the standpoint of resource allocations, case volumes, and enforcement actions, which represent the only publicly available measures of the system’s performance, immigration enforcement can be seen to rank as the federal government’s highest criminal law enforcement priority. http://www.migrationpolicy.org/pubs/enforcementpillars.pdf

DesideriScuri -> RE: Budget Battles and the Growth of the Administrative State (12/3/2013 8:18:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cloudboy So, these ideas behind a limited government that grants its subjects maximum freedom and economic prosperity have never been successfully implemented by anyone in history or current times, but you still believe it's the way to go? It's up to the USA to plow this field first. -------- We all have our own personal targets for bloated government agencies. Here's mine: WASHINGTON -- The United States spends more money on immigration enforcement -- nearly $18 billion in the 2012 fiscal year -- than on its other law enforcement agencies combined, according to a report released Monday from the nonpartisan Migration Policy Institute. There has been a "historic transformation of immigration enforcement and the emergence of a complex, modernized, cross-governmental immigration enforcement system that projects beyond the nation’s borders and at the same time reaches into local jails and courtrooms across the United States to generate an unparalleled degree of enforcement activity. The system’s six pillars have been resourced at unprecedented levels and a panoply of enforcement mandates and programs have been implemented that demonstrate the federal government’s ability and will to enforce the nation’s immigration laws. Beginning in the 1990s and intensified since 9/11, Congress, successive administrations, and the public have supported building a muscular immigration enforcement infrastructure within which immigration agencies now define their goals and missions principally in terms of national security and public safety. Immigration enforcement has been granted new standing as a key tool in the nation’s counterterrorism strategies, irrevocably altering immigration policies and practices in the process. From the standpoint of resource allocations, case volumes, and enforcement actions, which represent the only publicly available measures of the system’s performance, immigration enforcement can be seen to rank as the federal government’s highest criminal law enforcement priority. http://www.migrationpolicy.org/pubs/enforcementpillars.pdf We sorta agree on this, cloudboy. I want the US Immigration policy to be quicker and easier to get through. I don't want people to be allowed to come here without going through the process, though. As one Conservative talking head put it, "close the back doors, and widen the front doors." I do think the majority of illegal immigrants aren't flouting the laws because they want to or because they can. I think the majority of illegal immigrants can't get through the process in a reasonable time frame.

RottenJohnny -> RE: Budget Battles and the Growth of the Administrative State (12/3/2013 11:04:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cloudboy So, these ideas behind a limited government that grants its subjects maximum freedom and economic prosperity have never been successfully implemented by anyone in history or current times, but you still believe it's the way to go? They seem pretty successful to me. Is it perfect? No. But I don't think anyone expects "perfect". Nor should they. That's why America is called "The Great Experiment". We're engaged in a continuous process of finding the appropriate lines between tyranny and anarchy in order to best serve the people. Is it really that difficult to understand?

joether -> RE: Budget Battles and the Growth of the Administrative State (12/4/2013 1:33:51 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: cloudboy What modern state in the world has the limited type of government you'd like the USA to emulate? Who should we look to as an example, or is this idea of an idyllic limited government just a utopian notion? It seems to me Somalia and Afghanistan have limited government coupled with widespread gun ownership, but no sees them as model nations. Who represents your model nation? My model nation? We don't have to model it on anyone. That's part of your inability to understand me. Why not let the USA set the standard for other nations to emulate? Then you are still left with the position of needing to define this 'limited government' since you can not point out any realistic examples. Your the one that brought this thread up, so its rather expected you have a very well defined idea of what 'is' and 'isn't' within the realm of limited government in exact terms.

tweakabelle -> RE: Budget Battles and the Growth of the Administrative State (12/4/2013 2:25:34 AM)
Speaking as an outsider, I find it odd that some people have chosen to focus on "the administrative State" - which seems to be code for having a bureaucracy roughly the same in size and influence as any comparable modern State - as a threat to the Constitution . It comes as no surprise to discover that their objections are rooted in a quaint but dated ideological belief that the quality and/or efficiency of government is somehow a function of its size, and that therefore small government is necessarily better government. There is also a quasi-libertarian complete distrust of any form of government discernible in the argument advanced. The irony inherent in arguing that a particular minimalist model of government is preferable/superior from a premise that all government is to be distrusted seems lost on the OP. However the real reason I find it odd it is that there are far more real and immediate threats to your Constitution that are omitted from the discussion altogether. I am referring to the growth of the surveillance/security State in the last decade or so. For example one could point to issues such as passing the so-called Patriot Act, the NSA spying on private citizens, communications intercepts or the attempts to muzzle the media through the hounding of Wikileaks and the extraordinary espionage charges laid against whistleblower Snowder. (No matter what one may think of Snowden's actions, he is most definitely not a spy) So if I was American, there would be far more immediate concerns on my mind than the arcane perspective outlined in the OP. Administrative states can always be reformed one way or another, but if the growth of State security control over individual freedoms continues unabated, the size of the bureaucracy will be among the least of your worries.

Zonie63 -> RE: Budget Battles and the Growth of the Administrative State (12/4/2013 4:29:41 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: Zonie63 The Constitution is rather open-ended, so unless something is specifically prohibited in the Constitution, the government is theoretically authorized to do it, as long as Congress approves it and the President signs it and the Supreme Court doesn’t say it’s unconstitutional. If anyone else says it’s unconstitutional (like the author you linked in your OP), it really doesn’t matter, since it’s the Supreme Court’s call (and no one else’s). That's not true. Unless it's granted the authority by the Constitution, it's prohibited from acting in that manner. Why would the Constitution state that the Federal Government can raise and train an army? Shouldn't it have just not said it can't? Clearly, there are a lot of things that the federal government does without a specific mandate or authorization from the Constitution. Although the Tenth Amendment has been mentioned upthread, some mention should also be given to the Fourteenth Amendment which gives the federal government more authority over the states. But again, the ultimate arbiter in questions like these would be the Supreme Court. If the Supreme Court says that something is Constitutional, then that’s what we’re stuck with. The Bill of Rights mentions several things that the government is prohibited from doing. If what you’re saying is true, then there would be no need for a First Amendment, since the Constitution does not specifically authorize the government to regulate speech or religion. The key phrase is “Congress shall make no law…” The main thing is protecting individual civil and Constitutional rights of the people, which the government can’t violate. But if we’re talking about some other task that doesn’t actually infringe upon anyone’s rights, that would be different. quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri Better/worse are quite subjective in their meanings. Those long-haired freaky people may have been having sit-ins and other political activist events, but that doesn't mean government is better now since there isn't as much of that. I’m not saying that government is better now. However, I think that government can be made better when the populace is more vigilant, aware, and actively flexing their civic and electoral muscle. But if the public is passive, apathetic, complacent, ignorant, and easily manipulated, then the government will reflect that. The author of the article here seems to saying that Congress is the problem, suggesting that they abandoned their prerogative and left the mechanisms of power in the hands of the administrative state. He seems to be saying that this has made government worse since 1965, which is about the same time that those long-haired freaky people’s political activism started going into high gear, along with the Civil Rights movement and other activist causes. I was just wondering if there was any correlation between the rise of political activism in the 1960s and Congress “joining in the fun” of implementing the administrative state which the author seems to clearly abhor. In other words, do we have an administrative state today because the public wanted it? Or is the administrative state the government’s response to counter the rise of political activism? Moreover, is this even a political issue at all? Haven’t both parties contributed equally to the rise of the administrative state? I don’t see where either side has any room to talk in criticizing the other over the issue of limited government. Furthermore, I’m finding myself growing more skeptical whenever a political faction tries to claim ownership of America’s Founding Fathers or tries to make it seem like they’re more faithful and true to the Constitution than the other faction. We can’t just look at the Founding Fathers either, since America has changed and embraced new ideals and principles since then, while abandoning some, but not all, of the ideals held by the Founding Fathers. As I mentioned above, the Civil War changed how we govern this country and, in my opinion, is a far more monumental event in shaping America as we know it today, as opposed to the Republic established by the Founding Fathers.

MrRodgers -> RE: Budget Battles and the Growth of the Administrative State (12/4/2013 5:20:28 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle Speaking as an outsider, I find it odd that some people have chosen to focus on "the administrative State" - which seems to be code for having a bureaucracy roughly the same in size and influence as any comparable modern State - as a threat to the Constitution . It comes as no surprise to discover that their objections are rooted in a quaint but dated ideological belief that the quality and/or efficiency of government is somehow a function of its size, and that therefore small government is necessarily better government. There is also a quasi-libertarian complete distrust of any form of government discernible in the argument advanced. The irony inherent in arguing that a particular minimalist model of government is preferable/superior from a premise that all government is to be distrusted seems lost on the OP. However the real reason I find it odd it is that there are far more real and immediate threats to your Constitution that are omitted from the discussion altogether. I am referring to the growth of the surveillance/security State in the last decade or so. For example one could point to issues such as passing the so-called Patriot Act, the NSA spying on private citizens, communications intercepts or the attempts to muzzle the media through the hounding of Wikileaks and the extraordinary espionage charges laid against whistleblower Snowder. (No matter what one may think of Snowden's actions, he is most definitely not a spy) So if I was American, there would be far more immediate concerns on my mind than the arcane perspective outlined in the OP. Administrative states can always be reformed one way or another, but if the growth of State security control over individual freedoms continues unabated, the size of the bureaucracy will be among the least of your worries. While any number of people of various stripes can have a problem with the admin. state, it is a sorry commentary that you are correct. While the behemoth continues to grow, there are yet far more serious problems with modern govt. then the adding of a few thousand more desk jobs.

RottenJohnny -> RE: Budget Battles and the Growth of the Administrative State (12/4/2013 6:55:03 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle It comes as no surprise to discover that their objections are rooted in a quaint but dated ideological belief that the quality and/or efficiency of government is somehow a function of its size, and that therefore small government is necessarily better government. Um..."efficiency" is exactly about figuring out how to do more with less...or is that idea too "quaint but dated" for you to grasp?

mnottertail -> RE: Budget Battles and the Growth of the Administrative State (12/4/2013 8:50:32 AM)
The cheapest and easiest way to stop illegal immigration is to raid corporations and jail everyone in management, and fine the shit out of them. The employers have a criminal and civil component to their perfidy, the illegal alien only civil. The problem would disappear overnight. And you could decimate the INS. And save money as well as make money on fines.

joether -> RE: Budget Battles and the Growth of the Administrative State (12/4/2013 12:04:18 PM)
.

vincentML -> RE: Budget Battles and the Growth of the Administrative State (12/4/2013 4:22:22 PM)
quote: We are one of the most charitable nations on the planet. People in this country give away billions of dollars to help those in need outside of any government cash. If you look at what's available from private charities and are willing to ask for the help, it's pretty hard to not find a meal or a place to bed down until you can find a way to get back on your feet. All of this can happen without any government funds. It's not easy but it can be done. Bah! All supplemented by generous tax deductions.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Budget Battles and the Growth of the Administrative State (12/4/2013 4:32:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Zonie63 quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: Zonie63 The Constitution is rather open-ended, so unless something is specifically prohibited in the Constitution, the government is theoretically authorized to do it, as long as Congress approves it and the President signs it and the Supreme Court doesn’t say it’s unconstitutional. If anyone else says it’s unconstitutional (like the author you linked in your OP), it really doesn’t matter, since it’s the Supreme Court’s call (and no one else’s). That's not true. Unless it's granted the authority by the Constitution, it's prohibited from acting in that manner. Why would the Constitution state that the Federal Government can raise and train an army? Shouldn't it have just not said it can't? Clearly, there are a lot of things that the federal government does without a specific mandate or authorization from the Constitution. Although the Tenth Amendment has been mentioned upthread, some mention should also be given to the Fourteenth Amendment which gives the federal government more authority over the states. While there aren't things specifically named in the Constitution the Federal Government does do, most of them fall under the "necessary and proper" category of one of the thing specifically named. This is precisely why I think the Obamacare issue is going to end up with a defining (at least a more specific defining) of the "General Welfare of the United States" clause. Obviously, Obamacare isn't Constitutional according to the ICC, but is it considered "necessary and proper" under the General Welfare clause. I don't think the Founding Fathers would think it is, but we'll have to wait and see what happens here. quote: Moreover, is this even a political issue at all? Haven’t both parties contributed equally to the rise of the administrative state? I don’t see where either side has any room to talk in criticizing the other over the issue of limited government. Political? Absolutely. Partisan? Not so much. quote: Furthermore, I’m finding myself growing more skeptical whenever a political faction tries to claim ownership of America’s Founding Fathers or tries to make it seem like they’re more faithful and true to the Constitution than the other faction. We can’t just look at the Founding Fathers either, since America has changed and embraced new ideals and principles since then, while abandoning some, but not all, of the ideals held by the Founding Fathers. As I mentioned above, the Civil War changed how we govern this country and, in my opinion, is a far more monumental event in shaping America as we know it today, as opposed to the Republic established by the Founding Fathers. You are correct in your statements. But, the Constitution is still the framework for the Federal Government, and should only have one mode of alteration. Setting up the bureaucracies to control the nation isn't within the authorities of the Federal Government's Republican format. It separates government from the people more than what was intended.

LookieNoNookie -> RE: Budget Battles and the Growth of the Administrative State (12/4/2013 4:38:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: cloudboy So, these ideas behind a limited government that grants its subjects maximum freedom and economic prosperity have never been successfully implemented by anyone in history or current times, but you still believe it's the way to go? It's up to the USA to plow this field first. -------- We all have our own personal targets for bloated government agencies. Here's mine: WASHINGTON -- The United States spends more money on immigration enforcement -- nearly $18 billion in the 2012 fiscal year -- than on its other law enforcement agencies combined, according to a report released Monday from the nonpartisan Migration Policy Institute. There has been a "historic transformation of immigration enforcement and the emergence of a complex, modernized, cross-governmental immigration enforcement system that projects beyond the nation’s borders and at the same time reaches into local jails and courtrooms across the United States to generate an unparalleled degree of enforcement activity. The system’s six pillars have been resourced at unprecedented levels and a panoply of enforcement mandates and programs have been implemented that demonstrate the federal government’s ability and will to enforce the nation’s immigration laws. Beginning in the 1990s and intensified since 9/11, Congress, successive administrations, and the public have supported building a muscular immigration enforcement infrastructure within which immigration agencies now define their goals and missions principally in terms of national security and public safety. Immigration enforcement has been granted new standing as a key tool in the nation’s counterterrorism strategies, irrevocably altering immigration policies and practices in the process. From the standpoint of resource allocations, case volumes, and enforcement actions, which represent the only publicly available measures of the system’s performance, immigration enforcement can be seen to rank as the federal government’s highest criminal law enforcement priority. http://www.migrationpolicy.org/pubs/enforcementpillars.pdf We sorta agree on this, cloudboy. I want the US Immigration policy to be quicker and easier to get through. I don't want people to be allowed to come here without going through the process, though. As one Conservative talking head put it, "close the back doors, and widen the front doors." I do think the majority of illegal immigrants aren't flouting the laws because they want to or because they can. I think the majority of illegal immigrants can't get through the process in a reasonable time frame. I know you wanted to kill puppies. Cute little puppies.

LookieNoNookie -> RE: Budget Battles and the Growth of the Administrative State (12/4/2013 4:41:40 PM)
Desi wants to kill puppies....and Democrats. I've read his diatribe..... He wants to take puppies away from little girls and grind them up in blenders.....and then return them to their owners. (It's pretty fucking obvious). Puppy blender killer.....

vincentML -> RE: Budget Battles and the Growth of the Administrative State (12/4/2013 4:42:32 PM)
quote: The founding fathers knew that government was evil, but necessary. Or to quote Payne"Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one." The Founding was a revolution against centuries of feudal oppression and royal privilege. The 'evil' government was the government of kings and princes. Different times, different needs. quote: "[A] wise and frugal government...shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement,and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government." - Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address March 4, 1801 You quote this with a straight face knowing it was said in a time and by a man who owned slaves? You quote this while ignoring the history of government lead violent strike breaking? You can't seriously believe this shit. Really? Even today when folks can't earn a living wage from Walmart and the fast food industries? Really? [:-]

vincentML -> RE: Budget Battles and the Growth of the Administrative State (12/4/2013 4:53:57 PM)
quote: I find no value in this argument. Technology changes. People do not. The challenges of managing people, land, resources remain the same, year after year, generation after generation. Nation after nation. Do you suppose Roman government was simple because it occured 2000 years ago? Or Chinese? Nonsense. Evolving technology changes the way people live and the cultures in which they live, so their needs are changed as are their ways of functioning. quote: Very little of what the framers wrote is geared toward their age. They did not write "thou shalt provide internet" - they provided mechanisms for trade and communication. Isn't the logical conclusion of your argument that the constitution is worthless? In some arbitrary time, in some arbitrary place perhaps 500 years from now or perhaps 5, wouldn't the circumstances have changed so much (in your viewpoint) that it is meaningless? If that is so- then wht is the constitution to you but an inconvenience? Put me firmly in the camp that I value the constitution far more than government that grows and tries to replace it. The founders had no eye for the future. If so, they would have avoided the second revolution in 1861. The founders were gents of means who had one eye looking back over their right shoulders fearing the return of British royalty and one eye looking back over their left shoulders fearing the street uprisings by the Parisian scum. That's why they made the Constitution so difficult to change by amendments.

Page: << < prev 2 3 [4] 5 6 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

5.859375E-02